Essays on literary and theological themes

June 23, 2007

Bishop Donald Trautman: A Voice Crying in the Desert

1. WHAT HE SAID

.

The new ICEL translations, prepared without consultation with liturgists or writers or the laity, are kept vigilantly under lock and key, despite the immense benefits that would come from throwing them open to wider criticism. Can anything save the long-suffering worshipers of the English-speaking world from the high-handedness of the bureaucrats who have hijacked their spiritual life? The proposed new translations are horrible as examples of written English, and if used in Church will have a deadening effect on the liturgy, discouraging the lay participation called for by Vatican II.

.

Bishop Trautman of Erie diocese, chair of the United States Bishops’ Committee on Liturgy, has now published on his website his much-noticed America article on this looming scandal: http://www.eriercd.org/america.asp. He writes: ‘To what extent are the new prayers of the Missal truly pastoral? Do these new texts communicate in the living language of the worshipping assembly?... How pastoral are the new Collects when they are all in one single sentence containing a jumble of subordinate clauses and commas?... What happened to the liturgical principles of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy? The Council Fathers of Vatican II stated: “Texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify. Christian people, as far as possible, should be able to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively and as it befits a community”... The drafting of principles and norms of translation for vernacular languages should have involved the broadest consultation of Episcopal Conferences as well as liturgical and biblical scholars. However, the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments in 2001 issued a 36-page instruction on liturgical translation without collegial or collaborative effort... When the document Liturgiam Authenticam was issued, the executive board of the Catholic Biblical Association stated that this document “contains provisions detrimental to solid biblical scholarship…and advocates policies that make it difficult to produce good vernacular translations”. Those were prophetic words which have now been verified... I was dismayed when I recently learned that our liturgists — professionals with degrees and experience, teaching at our academic institutions — did not have access to the work of ICEL. No wonder there has been such limited public scrutiny of these translated texts. Some Bishops have consulted individual liturgical experts, but the learned societies of liturgists have been excluded. It would be pastorally prudent and so beneficial to translated texts destined for the worshipping assembly if the laity were involved in the preliminary process for judging the ICEL texts. For example, the proposed liturgical translated prayers could be proclaimed to lay groups to receive their initial reactions: What did they hear; what did they understand; did these texts lift their minds and hearts to God? ... If the language of the liturgy is a stumbling block to intelligibility and proclaimability, then the lex orandi, lex credendi is severely compromised.’ Bishop Trautman calls on the laity to speak up (the bishops having failed them), and he provides a list of addresses to which one should write.

.

2. THE NEOCATH RESPONSE

.

But how are the laity speaking up? The most audible voices are those of the radtrads or their near cousins the neocaths, and they have decided to make the new translations an issue of orthodoxy, on the pretext that the Novus Ordo translations authorized by Paul VI are riddled with subtle heresy. It is they who are most likely to write to the addresses listed by Bishop Trautman, while the majority of the laity remain disempowered and disaffected.

‘1) He ignores principles. Well, he has one - that of “pastoral” - but there is much more to liturgical language than that, and even that - “pastoral” doesn’t rise to the level of a principle because who knows what it means? What pleases your ear might grate on mine, so whom should the translators have in mind as they seek to be “pastoral?” No. There is much more to the matter of liturgical texts than that, and there are innumerable other issues related to the purpose and shape of liturgical language, none of which ever seem to appear in anything I read from Bishop Trautman on the issue.’ [Amy Welborn is an expert at turning a deaf ear.]

.

‘2) This “John and Mary Catholic” who haunt Bishop Trautman’s conscience are a worrisome pair. They are worrisome because of what they imply about a cleric’s view of the laity. As I have blogged and written before, many times, clerics and those in the church bureaucracy need to get their stories straight. Are we “the most highly educated laity in the history of the church” capable of making our moral decisions all on our own, without substantive Church guidance... or are we idiots who can’t figure out what “dew” is?’ [This indignation is misplaced; ICEL and the Vatican have deliberately excluded the laity from any role in the production of the new translations; to make it seem as if they were rapturously greeted by the laity in spite of begrudging bishops is the exact opposite of the truth. It is revelatory of a militant ideological outlook that that the fans of the unpublished new translations react so captiously and abrasively to criticism from qualified persons who have actually read the translations.]

.

‘I would gently suggest that those who are worried about translations, who don’t like the more elevated tone, not rely on the “the laity are too stupid to understand this” line of argumentation. There are, indeed, legitimate ways to discuss a translation and its fittingness, but this, in the end, is going to come back to bite you. [The liberal bishops are to blame and they are going to be bitten! The bishop’s perfectly legitimate discussion, which in no way impugned the intelligence of the laity, is met here by mere aggression.] Why? Well, because if it begs the simple question. If the laity can’t understand theological concepts expressed in slightly elevated or layered ways, could it be because no one’s bothered to teach them?’ [Again, this scrupulously misses the point. The ICEL translations may aim at elevation, but they miss their aim. The bishops is pointing to the unproclaimable and ungainly nature of the language, which destroys the elevation that he sees as pastorally required. But Amy Welborn touches on a sore point: these new translations are supposed to be ‘taught’ to the laity -- but where is the theological justification for them, and what theological instruction is supposed to accompany them? Lectures on the use of the metaphor of dew in the Hebrew Bible? Some frustrated pastors have suggested that since the bishops went it alone in composing and/or approving these incompetent translations they should undertake the task of explaining them directly to the laity.]

.

In Amy Welborn’s combox, Bishop Trautman becomes the target of the usual repertory of vitriolic abuse that neocaths systematically hurl at anyone they perceive to belong to the Vatican II generation: ‘Obviously Bishop Trautman wants a translation that an 18 year old with an IQ of 84 will fully comprehend at first hearing.’ ‘The man is an endless stream of complaints. If the carp isn’t a part of his episcopal seal, it should be.’ ‘His bizarre judgments about us indicate that he is really in the wrong post.’ ‘With all due respect to Bishop Trautman: “Your time is up. Move on.”‘ Much more comment in the same sarcastic vein can be found on other blogs: the neocaths have targeted Bishop Trautman as one of the Vatican II fogeys they consider it their mission to liquidate. The plain common sense of his remarks only makes them more offensive in neocath eyes, and his plea for sanity is characterized as dissidence and rebellion against the Pope.

.

3. ANOTHER NEOCATH RESPONSE

.

Another neocath blogger, lauded for her ‘measured response’ by Amy Welborn, dismisses Bishop Trautman’s seasoned words of wisdom as ‘a condescendingly and poorly written tantrum’: http://happycatholic.blogspot.com/2007/06/mary-catholic-ponders-new-translations.html. This rather abusive posting, by Julie D., again strikes the pose of the insulted laywoman in archly ironic tones: ‘By the way, thanks so much, Bishop, for thinking that we’re all too stupid to understand large or unfamiliar words. How uncharitable of you to assume the worst and then insult us by shouting it to the world.’ Like Amy Welborn, Julie D. sees nothing lacking in the miserable specimens of English the Bishop quoted. However, she adds: ‘Nice job, Bishop. Way to simultaneously rile up and depress people over something that they have no control over. However that is the way tantrums work. They draw attention and that is the ultimate goal of a tantrum ... to get attention and one’s own way.’ Here she appears to concede her own frustration that the laity have no control over translations; perhaps she is ‘tantrumizing’ about the current translations – if so, she will have much more to agonize about when the new ones are imposed! She admits that ‘words and translations do matter. If they matter in everyday life as we all know, then surely they matter when lifting our hearts and souls to God. Surely this is worth hammering out until it is right, rather than convenient “as is.”‘ Unfortunately, the proposed new translations are NOT an improvement on what we have at present, and though they may in turn be replaced when found wanting, that is unlikely to happen for perhaps as long as the current translation has lasted.

.

However, Julie D., who initially trusted the translation committee rather than the bishop on a priori grounds, has since heard the new Roman Canon (reproduced below) read out by a priest, and her reaction has been ecstatic:

.

‘The words rolled over us and I suddenly was awash in phrases that showed me God’s majesty, Jesus’ sacrifice, my place in it, God’s unending love for me ... and I felt gratitude and love in response. This may sound as if I’m overstating it. I’m not. I practically was in tears. That language literally lifted me to God. Meanwhile, I was astounded at the sparseness of the current text that corresponded to what was being read.’ She describes the present translation as the language of ‘efficiency’ and the new one as the language of ‘mystery’.

.

De gustibus non est disputandum. At least she is one of the fortunate few who have had access to the kind of consultation Bishop Trautman called for. Only it comes too late to have any influence on the translation process. She ends by saying, anyway it’s not up to us, we’ll be used to the new translation after six months, we’ll have something else to worry about, after all who now remembers the brouhaha about the Da Vinci Code. But as thirty years of nagging about the current translation show, this is overoptimistic. I predict that the new translations will be a source of headaches for many years, and will further contribute to the voiding of churches.

.

4. THE SECRET TEXT

.

Ironically, it seems that Julie D.’s experience of hearing the new translations was illicit, to judge from the following letter:

.

From: “Peter Finn” <pfinn@eliturgy.org>Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007

.

Dear Father Finigan:

It has come to our attention that the proposed translation (Gray Book) of the Order of Mass circulated in January 2006 by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy has been included on your blogspot (the-hermeneutic-of continuity.blogspot.com). This translation has been produced without the Commission’s permission and in violation of the ICEL copyright. We ask therefore that the text be removed immediately from the site.

This proposed translation has been sent to the Conferences for their canonical vote and prepared after consideration of comments from Conferences of Bishops, the Vox clara Committee, and the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments on the ICEL February 2005 draft translation (Green Book).

The Bishops of the Commission are concerned that these texts not be released to the general public until the requisite votes have been taken and after the preparation of any additional revisions that may follow upon their vote and the recognitio issued by the Congregation to the Conferences. The Bishops of the Commission are especially concerned that these texts be introduced with sufficient catechetical materials intended to aid the reception of the new translation.

In light of these and other concerns, we ask for your kind cooperation in this matter and look forward to your reply.

Thank you for your email of yesterday evening (“ICEL2006 text of the Order of Mass”) which I have just read.

I obtained the text of the “Gray Book” draft of the new ICEL translation from the internet and I understand that it is widely available in South Africa. However, I note that ICEL wish to insist that my mirroring of this text is a violation of their copyright and I have removed the translation from my blog.

I am, of course aware that the text which I published is not the final version and I hope that I made this sufficiently clear. Several readers have made intelligent comments on my blog and elsewhere on the internet regarding the translation and I wish that ICEL were able to see the value of involving a wider group of people in consultation. The internet used with discernment is a most effective medium for obtaining fruitful discussion and it seems a pity that the process of producing a translation should exclude the many faithful English-speaking Catholics across the globe who would be glad to contribute their time and expertise free of charge in order to help in establishing the best translation possible for the texts of the Mass.

You say that the Bishops are “especially concerned” that the texts should not be introduced without sufficient catechetical materials that would aid the reception of the new translations. As a priest who has worked in parishes for 21 years, I find it difficult to understand this concern. The existing translations which Catholics are obliged to use every day present such severe shortcomings that they are in themselves a significant barrier to effective catechesis. I cannot see that any harm could come from publishing the draft texts. They have been a great encouragement to many faithful Catholics who have endured inaccurate, theologically impoverished translations of the texts of the Sacred Liturgy for over 30 years. Most Catholics will be immediately delighted with the new translation and amazed that the full richness of the texts of the Mass has been hidden from them for so long.

On the matter of copyright, I know that many good priests and lay people share my concern that the enforcement of copyright by ICEL over the past decades has not served the Church well. The restriction of publishing rights to one or two publishers has given rise to a monopoly with the result that only poorly produced books are available for priests to use in their parishes. The most recent Missal that I purchased for my parish needed to be reinforced with tape after only six weeks of use. The “deluxe” leather-bound “Book of the Chair” fell apart at the seams after a year or so of normal use.

There are many Catholics who would be willing to finance the production of good quality, beautifully produced Missals were it only possible to do so without falling foul of copyright restrictions. When the final text is given recognitio by the Congregation for Divine Worship, I sincerely hope that it will be made freely available on the internet in order that faithful Catholics can foster the production of worthy and dignified books for use in the Sacred Liturgy without unnecessary obstacles being placed in their way. Copyright for ecclesiastical texts is properly used if it prevents profiteering or the production of inaccurate copies. It is an abuse, surely, if it prevents good Catholics from providing excellent materials for our Liturgy.

Amazingly, the Denver Catholic Register has hauled out neocon George Weigel to demolish Bishop Trautman: http://www.archden.org/dcr//news.php?e=424&s=3&a=8902. Weigel attacks the current translation, as if Bishop Trautman were calling for more of the same, and reduces his critique of the new translation to a question of dumbing-down. ‘Are there clunkers in the new translations? Undoubtedly. But will ICEL’s attempt to restore the sacral vocabulary and linguistic rhythms of the Roman Rite to Catholic worship within the Anglosphere destroy our ability to pray as a community? Please; we’re not morons. I’d even venture the guess that prayers translated with far more fidelity to the Latin originals will be a step toward a deeper, more prayerful encounter with what Bishop Trautman rightly calls “the greatest gift of God, the Eucharist.”‘ This is wishful thinking based on a priori trust in the translation committee, and ignores Trautman and St Jerome’s distinction between literal and faithful translation. The clunkiness of the new translations is not incidental, but endemic, because it is due to the underlying false theory of translation.

.

Appallingly, the neocath blogosphere has taken up and orchestrated Weigel’s guffaws, including his captious and specious suggestions that heresy has infiltrated the current translations. Perhaps when the new translations, which Bishop Trautman has read and Weigel hasn’t, are imposed, many who are now cheering will be grinding their teeth, saddled with an embarrassment (much as former enthusiasts for George W. Bush and his Iraq cakewalk are now cringing).

.

Bishop Peter Elliot of Melbourne has written an extremely reactionary denunciation of the current translations: ‘The translations we use have effectively perpetuated elements of a dead and discredited school of theology. I refer to the secularized theology of the 1960s. Some of my generation and those among us who are a little older can recall the “secular city” of Harvey Cox, the “God is dead” theology of Bishop John Robinson and the London “left bank”, when views such as “religionless Christianity” circulated’ (http://www.adoremus.org/0607LiturgicalTranslation.html). This totally jaundiced picture of the present translations (he does not think much of the French ones either, though they are surely far superior) does nothing to guarantee that the new ones are going to be any better. The claimed literal fidelity of the new ones pleases the reactionary instincts of the neocaths. This means that as an ideological imposition that are quite likely to displease and alienate the vast majority of Catholics, who do not sigh for motu proprios, Mass celebrated with the priest’s back to the people, and sacrificial and mariological jargon of the 1950s. The new translations are shaping up to look like a coup from the Catholic right. That the coup is attended by such appalling linguistic incompetence is a reflection on the ill-adjusted nature of their theology as well.

.

The partisan quality of the new translations will be even more apparent if, as is likely, their imposition entails the abolition of the current translations. Perhaps the Vatican feels like Bishop Elliot that the current translations, while not exactly heretical, carry too much of the atmosphere of the regrettable years after Vatican II. There seems to be a momentum to the Vaticanist hijacking/suppression of Vatican II that carries it more and more in the direction of ghastly simulacra of the pre-Vatican II Church. All we have heard about the new translations suggests the worst kind of restoration, where the ambition to revive past beauty results only in hideous travesty. The Roman Canon, in Latin, is a beautiful prayer, albeit not without structural defects; the current English translation captures well enough the movement of the prayer, paring away some expressions that do not communicate in English; the new translation is fussy and verbose in a way that is very false to the style and spirit of the Latin original. The effect of the new translation will be to kill the First Eucharistic Prayer.

.

VOICES OF SANITY.

Another vox clamans in deserto is that of Andrew Cameron-Mowat SJ, professor of liturgy at Heythrop College, who writes:

.

‘Articles are appearing which are quite insidious in the way in which they polarise the theologians of Vatican II into one of two camps: the von Balthasar camp (true to the tradition, maintaining the authority of the Church over [secular] humanity, emphasis on the holiness of faithful Christians) and the Rahner camp (allowing for the possibility of change and development, of inculturation, of the importance of the human person, of the pastoral needs concerning weakness, sin, suffering). The reconsideration of Rahner is of particular contemporary importance. The aim of his critics seems to be to shift his insights about the Liturgy of the World, of the anonymous Christian, of the inherent goodness of the human person, toward the liberal, relativistic, post-modern views that are presently (and in many ways deservedly) under scrutiny. Better to follow von Balthasar with his emphasis on membership of the Church as saving institution. For these people, the world is inherently sinful and godless. The Mass of the Roman Rite, before the changes, was an organic whole, pure, holy, and beautiful; it offered a refuge in its mystery and mysticism. The reform has done little but tarnish that sacred deposit. As for the liturgists, that joke about us and terrorists continues to be heard, but the reason we are reluctant to negotiate is that we have studied the issues in depth. There are other types of theologian in the world than dogmatic or systematic ones, and liturgical theology could be more valuable today because it has greater relevance at the “front line”‘ (http://www.thepastoralreview.org/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi?priestsppl-00101)

.

Also, as quoted by the Adoremus site:

.

“Imagine the excitement and joy as puzzling, frustrating, repetitive, archaic, discriminatory, illogical, insensitive, tautological, inaudible, ahistorical, invisible, and unintelligible words, gestures, actions and texts were expunged, obliterated, edited, shortened, translated and clarified ... the new mystagogy would be the experience of Liturgy in itself; it would be in its celebration, self-explanatory; this would make more wonderful what we could see, hear, taste, smell, touch; now the Paschal mystery could, as in the earliest times, come alive for us in ways which were directly ‘perceptible to the senses’. It was to be through this mystagogy of our senses that we would come to experience and celebrate the divine mysteries that lie beyond our perception”.

.

“When we come to the time for the ‘reform of the reform’, which we must, I hope we won’t consider going back to the old books and starting again; the next reform should be a further development of the present rites which will acknowledge the importance of variety and pluriformity, and which will give a far greater license to episcopal conferences to shape the Roman Rite (characterized by unity with pluriformity rather than uniformity) in the best way for their cultures and pastoral settings”.

.

Needess to say, these views are trounced with Ann Coulterish sarcasm by Adoremus and the other noisy neocath groups.

.

The voice of reason is also sounded in Amy Welborn’s combox:

‘Where is the artistry? I submit that, in the excerpts we’ve seen, there is none. It’s nothing more than false nostalgia for the lugubrious translations from old popular missals. Plus the added bonus of using a heavily gendered language as an excuse to inoculate liturgy from inclusive language.

‘Since when is Mass supposed to be vocabulary class? Where are the real artists, the poets and novelists and essayists who could really bring the presence of God through their art and craft? Nowhere to be seen, just as the real artists in music have been marginalized these last 35 years.

‘We are about to lose a marvelous opportunity to make real, substantive improvements in our worship: more artistry in music and word, and especially in preaching and teaching. We are going to blow it, big time.

.

‘The right approach to take is at once pastorally solid and artistically excellent. Hire artists in the written word in English, and then evaluate the artistry and richness of their texts on whether they transmit the multi-layered substance of what the Mass is supposed to say.

.

‘The wrong approach is to say that Latinisms, with a few high British archaisms thrown in to show us Americans our place, will automatically transmit all this cognitive and affective substance.

.

‘My bottom line is: The 1970 Mass is not our best work, but what’s being proposed isn’t either. Scrap it and begin again.

‘As a graduate of the Boston Latin School, I can personally attest that some of the translations I have seen, including such things as a literal version of the ablative absolute, would earn a C or worse in any Latin class.’ R. P. Burke (reaction to him was mostly negative)

.

Ryan C., in another combox (http://www.lightondarkwater.com/blog), writes: ‘As for the many Catholics who want this translation, I understand and respect their desire, but I also know Catholics who don’t see the need for it, who will in fact be put off or confused by the new translations, especially if the change is not explained, as I fear may be the case.

‘That all said, I do think there are banal parts to the liturgy. The fact that it has proved an obstacle to you and to others is a serious matter to me, one that strikes me deeply. Yes, the banal translation of the scriptures has not helped me either. That does need fixing. I would certainly welcome a more aesthetically pleasing, more accurate translation of the mass.

‘I just think from what I’ve seen that the new translation is going to cause other problems, other obstacles. It’s also very frustrating to me that there can be no middle ground, that the Church might nauseatingly swing back and forth on a pendulum from progressivist to reactionary movements. I’m intensely bothered by the way this whole process has gone on. For me, a tremendous obstacle in my life as a Catholic is that the Church is even fighting over this to begin with, that attention is not being directed against even more pressing problems, catechesis and charity.

‘Perhaps this is all just because this is the translation I’m used to. But there are a lot of people in that same situation.

‘When the Latin mass is finally allowed in widespread use again (and reports are that it will be soon), I think I’ll go to that. That way I won’t have to deal with clumsy English translations, and can just translate in my head, or follow my grandmother’s aforementioned missal, or just bask in the beauty of the language. And perhaps I can find peace in the liturgy without being self-conscious about what I’m experiencing, or about the controversy raging over the mass I’m worshipping in at the moment.’ .

To you, most[*] merciful Father,we therefore[*] humbly pray[*]through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord.We ask you to accept and bless + these gifts,these offerings,these holy[*] and undefiled[*] sacrifices[*],which we offer you first of allfor your holy Catholic Church.Be pleased to grant her peace,to guard[*], unite[*] and govern[*] herthroughout the whole world,together with your servant N. our Popeand N. our Bishop,and all Bishops who, holding to the truth,[*]hand on the catholic and apostolic faith.Remember, Lord, your servants N. and N.and all [*]gathered here,whose faith and devotion are known to you.For them we offer you this sacrifice of praiseand they offer it to you for themselves[*]and all who are theirs,[*]for the redemption of their souls,[*]in hope of health and security,[*]and fulfilling their vows to you,[*]the eternal God, living and true.

In communion with the whole Church,they venerate[*] above all others[*] the memoryof the glorious[*] ever-virgin Mary,Mother of our God [*]and Lord, Jesus Christ,† then of blessed Joseph, husband of the Virgin[*],your blessed Apostles and Martyrs,Peter and Paul, Andrew,James, John,Thomas, James, Philip,Bartholomew, Matthew,Simon and Jude:Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus,Cornelius, Cyprian,Laurence, Chrysogonus,John and Paul,Cosmas and Damianand all your Saints:grant through their merits and prayersthat in all things[*] we may be defendedby the help of your protection.[*]Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Therefore, Lord, we pray:graciously accept this offering from us, your servants,and from your whole family:order our days in your peace,and command that we be delivered from eternal damnationand counted among the flock[*] of those you have chosen.Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

We pray, O God:be pleased to bless, recognize,[*]and approve [*]this offering in every way[*]:make it spiritual[*] and acceptable,that it become for us[*]the Body and Blood of your most [*]beloved Son,our Lord Jesus Christ.Who, on the day before he was to suffertook bread into his holy and venerable [*]hands:with eyes raised to heavento you, O God, his almighty Father,giving you thanks he said the blessing,[*]broke the breadand gave it to his disciples, saying:Take this, all of you, and eat of it,for this is my Body,which will be given up for you.In the same way, when supper was ended,he took this precious chalice[*]into his holy and venerable [*]hands,and once more giving you thanks, he[*] said the blessingand gave it to his disciples, saying:Take this, all of you, and drink from it,for this is the Cup of my Blood,the Blood of the new and eternal Covenant;it will be poured out for you and for all for the forgiveness of sins.Do this in memory of me.

Therefore, O Lord,as we celebrate the memorial of the blessed passion,[*]the resurrection from the dead,and the glorious ascension into heavenof Christ, your Son, our Lord,we, your servants and your holy people,[*]offer to your glorious majesty[*]from your own generous [*]gifts,the pure victim,[*]the holy victim,[*]the spotless victim,[*]the holy [*]Bread of eternal lifeand the Chalice[*] of everlasting[*] salvation.Be pleased to look upon them,with a serene and kindly gaze,[*]and to accept themas you were pleased to acceptthe gifts of your just servant Abel,the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith,and the offering of your high [*]priest Melchizedek,a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim.[*]

In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God,bid that these gifts be borne[*]by the hands of your holy Angelto your altar on highin the sight of your divine majesty,[*]that all of us who receivethe most holy Body and Blood of your Sonthrough this sharing at the altar[*]may be filled with every grace and blessing from above[*].Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Remember also, Lord, your servants N. and N.who have gone before us with[*] the sign of faithand rest in the sleep of peace[*].Grant them, O Lord, we pray,and all who sleep in Christ,a place[*] of refreshment, light and peace[*].Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

To us sinners also,your servants who hope[*] in your abundant mercies,graciously grant[*] some share[*]in the communion of your holy Apostles and Martyrs:with John the Baptist, Stephen,Matthias, Barnabas,Ignatius, Alexander,Marcellinus, Peter,Felicity, Perpetua,Agatha, Lucy,Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia,and all your saints,into whose company we beg [*]you [*]admit[*] us,not weighing our merits but granting us pardon,[*]through Christ our Lord.Through whomyou constantly create all these good things,[*] O Lord,you make them holy and fill them with life,you bless them and bestow them on us.[*]

Through him, and with him, and in him,to you, O God, almighty Father,in the unity of the Holy Spirit,is [*]all honour and glory,for ever and ever.Amen.

Pray, brothers and sisters, that the sacrifice[*] which is mine and yours may be acceptable to God the almighty Father.

May the Lord accept the sacrifice[*] from your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good and the good of all his holy Church. Amen.

Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is right and just[*].

Holy, Holy, Holy is[*] the Lord God of hosts. Heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.

Taught[*] by the Saviour’s command[*] and formed[*] by the word[*] of God, we have the courage to say: Our Father …

Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil, graciously grant peace in our days[*], that, sustained by the help[*] of your mercy, we may be always free from sin and safe from all distress[*], as we await the blessed hope[*], the coming of our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

For the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours now and for ever.

Lord Jesus Christ, who said to your Apostles, Peace I leave you, my peace I give you, look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and be pleased[*] to grant[*] her[*] peace and unity in accordance with your will. Amen.

The peace of the Lord be with you always. And with your spirit[*].

Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who[*] takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the banquet of the Lamb. Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof[*], but only say the word and my soul[*] shall be healed.

May the Body of Christ keep me safe[*] unto[*] eternal life.

What has passed our lips[*] as food, O Lord, may we possess[*] in purity of heart, that what has been given us in time may be our healing for eternity[*].

I have seen a copy of the proposed texts. While I would prefer a few changes here and there, it is nevertheless, far superior to the current translation which is neither faithful nor beautiful. I am glad I don't have to use the current translation. Would be inclined to either shudder or laugh because of the banality of it. To quote Robert Taft, SJ: "they have taken the most boring liturgical form in Christendom and rendered it lugubrious."